W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: RFC2518 LOCK Response Code

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:36:35 -0800
To: "'W3C WebDAV Mailing List'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20001206113635.Z27235@lyra.org>
This is DEEP_LOCK_ERROR_STATUS in the issues list:
  http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/protocol/issues.html

Original note at:
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999AprJun/0196.html


For reference: mod_dav returns a 207. Assuming the other resources are
locked, those response elements indicate 423 (Locked), and the Request-URI
has a 424 (Failed Dependency) attached to it.

Cheers,
-g

On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 12:21:00PM -0500, Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> My vote would be that a 409 is the correct status code, and
> that 8.10.7 should be updated to reflect this.  There will be
> other reasons why you would get a 409 (perhaps access control
> limitations), so this is just one of the reasons why you'd
> get a 409.  I'd only return 207 when a Depth operation effectively
> caused the method to be applied independently to all the members
> of the collection, and this is not the case for a LOCK request,
> where a single lock-token is allocated (whose scope is the whole
> collection).
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hall, Shaun [mailto:Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 4:31 AM
> To: 'W3C WebDAV Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: RFC2518 LOCK Response Code
> 
> 
> Reposting as I've had no response to this.
> 
> Am I correct in my assumption i.e. does the spec need updating?
> 
> Regards
> 
> Shaun Hall
> Xerox Europe
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hall, Shaun [mailto:Shaun.Hall@gbr.xerox.com]
> > Sent: 23 November 2000 12:04
> > To: 'W3C WebDAV Mailing List'
> > Subject: RFC2518 LOCK Response Code
> > 
> > 
> > An issue regarding a LOCK response code in RFC2518. A quick 
> > search in the
> > archives didn't show anything about this.
> > 
> > In section 8.10.4, it states "If the lock cannot be granted to all
> > resources, a 409 (Conflict) status code MUST be returned with 
> > a response
> > entity body containing a multi-status XML element...".
> > 
> > 1) The 409 status code is not listed in section 8.10.7 (LOCK 
> > status codes).
> > 2) The example in section 8.10.10 (Multi-resource LOCK 
> > request which fails)
> > returns a 207 (Multi-status) response code, not a 409.
> > 
> > The 207 response is normal for WebDAV methods that need to provide
> > information about multiple-resources.
> > 
> > I'm inclined to think the 207 is the correct response in such 
> > a failure
> > case, which at first implies the 409 is wrong.
> > 
> > However, I think the only case where a 409 is applicable is 
> > if one it trying
> > to "create" a Lock Null Resource (LNR) (i.e. the 
> > null-resource does not
> > exist) and where the ancestors of the LNR do not exist. I 
> > think this would
> > be consistent with other methods as well (e.g. PUT, COPY, MOVE).
> > 
> > Comments/clarification/etc please.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Shaun Hall
> > Xerox Europe
> > 

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2000 14:33:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:55 GMT